Stephen J. Gould

[juantoo3]

Thank you, Susma, for the thoughtful reply!

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

Medieval Catholic theologians make a distinction between pure spirits and the human soul which is also a spirit. Pure spirits are God and angels.

If I may be allowed an observation, how would "devils" figure into this equation? As well, this may indicate possession experiences, a thought I hadn't considered.

The problem of spirits not having any connection with matter or flesh is specially challenging in man composed of body and soul. That is why man is not complete in a disembodied soul awaiting the resurrection when body and soul will come together again.

Perhaps my "Christian" understanding is different. I understand us to resurrect into a spiritual body, or perhaps better stated "astral" body. Why be burdened for eternity with a worn out shell full of pains, problems and complications? I confess to some vagueness on this specific attribute, to which I am content to allow that what will be, will be.

Another problem with spirits not being in any way connected with matter is the question how spirits like angels can affect matter; for it is a doctrine of Christianity that angels do affect matter and flesh, i.e., the body of man.

Your position that the corporeal body, as the human body, and spirits are not distinctly disparate beings -- if I understand you correctly. Your position does away with all the problems relating to how body and soul intereact and how spirits act on or affect matter.

I am certain I am having difficulty here understanding quite what it is you mean. Are you observing the possibility, or refuting the possibility? Not asked as a challenge, merely a clarification.

Simplicity, that is the way to go: No need to distinguish very strictly between matter and spirit or matter and mind; spirit is just a more subtle mode of being, insofar as our senses are concerned.

I have long been an advocate of the KISS principle, the polite version being "Keep It Sweet and Simple." I find this accords well with Ockham's Razor. This would be a question for the physicists among us: "Would not matter and spirit be merely different manifestations of energy?"

I think I can accept that, being a postgraduate Catholic. And maybe one day our laboratory workers will show us how spirits can be detected and how we can communicate with them.

Perhaps this answers my earlier question. And I am in agreement about science one day realizing spirit, and perhaps from that experience being more willing to interact productively with religion. Of course, that sword is double-edged. Religion too, must become more willing to interact productively with science.

They might be helpful in getting very demanding physical tasks done, like moving mountains?

Susma Rio Sep

Point taken. It may require such assistance to bring everybody into agreement with each other, i.e. world peace.

Thanks again.

[Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine]

Originally posted by juantoo3
Kindest Regards, Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine!

Yes, I agree. Perhaps I left certain elements out in my attempt to be inclusive, please forgive my oversight. I tend to use the term "God" in rational discussions in a generic all-inclusive manner, at least in my mind. Thank you for reminding me that my intent does not always come across. I believe there is a specific creator God that has a name, a name it is not wise to use frivolously. This is my personal understanding, which I generally hold aside from rational discussion unless that discussion is specifically about that God. My apologies for any misunderstanding or insensitivity.

No offense taken. I was using god/goddess/G!d/G!ddess as to include the dichotomy (sp?) of beliefs I've encountered both online and offline. Some of us here believe in G!d, some believe in G!ddess, some believe in one or more gods/goddesses. I've pretty much gotten into a habit of writing this way (drove one person batty trying to figure out why anybody would be so "inconsiderate" to "The Truth", but I shan't go off concerning some "fundies". )

Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine

[Susma Rio Sep]

Thanks Juan for your courteous reply.

I call myself a postgraduate Catholic, meaning that while I was brought up Catholic and studied in Catholic institutions, I don't conduct myself as a polemicist or an apologist for the Catholic Church.

Who really knows exactly and correctly what the Catholic Church teaches. Even the Pope has to be told what he genuinely means when he does say anything which he wants his flock to take seriously. And these people telling his flock what he wants to say are themselves in dispute among themselves.

About devils, they are also angels, but fallen ones because they rebelled against God.

As to the resurrected body, yes it's a glorious one but still essentially a body biological and material, of blood and tissue.

Your musings about the spirit substance is most informative and contributes to my education. Thanks.

My own position is that body and spirit was invented by thinkers so that things they can't use logic and mathematics on they consign to spirit.

Maybe the best thing is just to say that spirit as conceived by religionists is nothing but all in the mind.

No, I am not speaking for the Catholic Church. Who really knows correctly what the Catholic Church teaches at any one moment and one place. The same with any other religion. Of course in broad delineaments they do appear to say within their respective doctrinal repertory fluidly similar things, their spokesmen that is who are appointed as official ones.


Susma Rio Sep

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine

No offense taken. I was using god/goddess/G!d/G!ddess as to include the dichotomy (sp?) of beliefs I've encountered both online and offline. Some of us here believe in G!d, some believe in G!ddess, some believe in one or more gods/goddesses. I've pretty much gotten into a habit of writing this way (drove one person batty trying to figure out why anybody would be so "inconsiderate" to "The Truth", but I shan't go off concerning some "fundies". )

Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine

I appreciate your view concerning "fundies", likewise, I am equally af the same view of PC. For different reasons of course. I find it gets in the way of trying to convey a thought. I was taught old school, and as good as my intentions are, I still come across old school. I guess a leopard has a really tough time trying to change his spots!

[Susma Rio Sep]

Phil says:

Some of us here believe in G!d, some believe in G!ddess, some believe in one or more gods/goddesses.

I would much prefer goddesses to gods, provided they come in genuine curves and bulges of the Greek proportions type.

Of course I am a faithful husband to my wife and an exemplary father to my kids. But I would not mind appreciating goddesses of the beauty contest types. Yet, truth to tell, beauty contests are more what my wife spend hours on when such are on the tv. I spend time with guys in this website, exchanging views and information.

Susma Rio Sep

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards again, Susma,

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

About devils, they are also angels, but fallen ones because they rebelled against God.

I am of the same opinion. In the context we had been discussing, of interaction of spirit with matter, it hit me that if "devils" are spirits, and spirits interact with matter, this would explain legitimate examples of possession. Not a subject I wish to further pursue, just a cursory observation in the course of developing the thought.

Actually, this might be a point to note that while I mentioned this connection between soul/spirit and matter (corporeal flesh body) interacting via quantum physics (mechanics?) as a developing thought in my mind, there are 2 things I must quickly point out. Firstly, I have been developing these thoughts for quite some time, at least ten years. And the second is that the first place I heard of the concept of quantum physics being used to describe "spirit" was not a "religious thinker", but was a "scientific thinker" somehow involved in the field of quantum physics. I don't recall the person's name, or even the specific context, but that particular article is what sparked my interest in the subject, at least as a spectator. I ate up every article I could find pertaining to neutrinos, I find it fascinating they can travel completely through the globe of the earth and keep on truckin'. This in no way makes me any authority on the subject, I am very willing to accept, that is why I would really like some input from one or two people who are more familiar with quantum physics, so I can figure out if I may be on to a rational line of pursuit, or if I'm only barking up a tree.

As to the resurrected body, yes it's a glorious one but still essentially a body biological and material, of blood and tissue.

I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree for the moment, and I don't see any definitive resolution until the time comes.

Your musings about the spirit substance is most informative and contributes to my education. Thanks.

I appreciate the thanks, but I'm not certain they are warranted. I just enjoy making people, myself included, think.

My own position is that body and spirit was invented by thinkers so that things they can't use logic and mathematics on they consign to spirit.

Maybe the best thing is just to say that spirit as conceived by religionists is nothing but all in the mind.

Susma Rio Sep

I suppose a great deal hinges on who the "religionists" are. From my vantage, I see everybody as a religionist of one stripe or another, including atheists. So if "it is all in your head", well...

[Vajradhara]

bump...


relevant to the evolution discussion ongoing are Dr. Goulds important points about the use of the term "theory" which differes between lay people and scientsists.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Vajradhara!

Thank you, I had quite forgotten this thread!

[Jaiket]

Vajraghara, great article. Have you read about the 'Steves' in memory of Dr. Gould?

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by Jaiket

Vajraghara, great article. Have you read about the 'Steves' in memory of Dr. Gould?

Namaste Jaiket,

thank you for the post.

no, i've not read it... do you have a link to it?

have you had a chance to read Dr. Goulds explanation of the Median is not the Message, concerning his fight with cancer? if not, you may find it to be quite interesting:

http://www.cancerguide.org/median_not_msg.html

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

no, i've not read it... do you have a link to it?

NCSE's Project Steve

[believer142]

Vajradhara i certainly dont have enough empirical knowledge to argue with u considering i am only 18. But in order for natural selection to occur the best characteristics of a species must be passed down to the offspring. This is survival of the fittest right? How can this occur when a system needs all of its proponents to function. Correct me if im wrong but this seems possible but very improbable. enlighten me please.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste believer,

thank you for the post and welcome to the forum.

Originally Posted by believer142

Vajradhara i certainly dont have enough empirical knowledge to argue with u considering i am only 18. But in order for natural selection to occur the best characteristics of a species must be passed down to the offspring. This is survival of the fittest right? How can this occur when a system needs all of its proponents to function. Correct me if im wrong but this seems possible but very improbable. enlighten me please.

well... i would say that, perhaps, you could visit this link for a good primer on the subject:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evohome.html

this site should answer most of your questions in this regard.

generally speaking, for instance, Evolution does not indicate that the "best" characteristics of an organism get passed on, it is the traits that allow the organism the best advantange in it's particular ecosystem. i suppose that we could consider those to be "best" however, that wouldn't be terribly accurate.

think of humans for a moment... inside each one are virii and bacteria. depending on how diligent you are with your antibacterial soap, you will kill all the bacteria on your hands when you wash. however, if you don't wash for the full 30 seconds, minimum, rather than killing all the bacteria, you merely make them sick and, rather like humans, they develop resistence to the antibiotics... they "evolve" a defense against them.

these "superbugs" are especially viriulent and dangerous. there are several of them out there these days, with perhaps the most well known being VRSE and MRSA.

you may want to check out this link for some very sobering and, if i may, frightening news:

http://whyfiles.org/038badbugs/scope.html